***Please note that the following article is solely the opinion of the author and does not speak for or represent Mitt Romney or the Romney campaign.

President Obama’s announcement last week that he “supports gay marriage” helped provide a clear contrast between Obama and Romney and will almost certainly have a major impact on the elections in November.

History has shown that the issue of gay marriage is a powerful vote mover. As Politico reported last week:

For all the signs of increased tolerance and changing mores, there’s one undeniable fact: A full embrace of gay rights has never been a winner in the political arena.

Fifteen years of ballot measures in more than 30 states from coast-to-coast show an issue that has been rejected nearly every time it’s gone before the voters — often by large margins.

As many political observers have noted, Obama’s announcement moves the electoral map more in the favor of Mitt Romney. In particular, Obama’s move helps tilt “6 or 7 key swing states” toward the Romney camp. These states are namely North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio.

In North Carolina voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state just one week ago. In another crucial swing state, Florida, a similar ban was passed in 2008. Ohio, Michigan and Missouri also passed similar bans in 2004. Virginia, Colorado and Wisconsin passed bans in 2006 and Arizona in 2008.

A lot has been said lately about the shifting support for gay marriage over the last decade. Many point to a recent poll saying that a slim majority of Americans now support gay marriage. However, in regard to polls, keep in mind two key facts. #1) During the upcoming election, the swing states matter a lot more than the national average. And the swing states are showing a strong inclination away from same sex marriage. And #2) Aaron Blake of the Washington Post recently released this analysis about polls on gay marriage:

Does a majority of the country really support gay marriage?

As is often true in polling, it depends on how you ask the question.

A Gallup poll last week showed that 51 percent of Americans support gay marriage, but a CBS News/New York Times poll out today shows that only 38 percent support it.

The difference: Gallup gave voters just two options — support or oppose — while the CBS/NYT poll added a third, civil unions.

When given that third choice, polls show that it draws significantly from both the pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage camps, but in the end, overall support for gay marriage drops well below a majority.

Notably, then, the civil unions choice also appears to be drawing some support from gay marriage opponents — a reflection that there is plenty of support (62 percent) for some kind of legal recognition of gay couples.

For Obama, a candidate who has been angling to the political center, his announcement represents a hard turn to the political left. In my humble opinion, I think it is going to be too far left for most people – an overstep where Obama got in “a little over his skis.”

Take for example, the new shirts for sale on Barack Obama’s website. Some of the slogans on the shirts read, ”My two moms support Obama” or “My two dads support Obama.”

These are not center-of-the-road phrases. I don’t think these kinds of phrases would be seen in virtually any election in the US, even predominantly democratic ones.

Another shirt says “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repealed 12/22/10.” I am not sure that is a slogan you want to publicize very broadly since most in the military were opposed to repealing DADT.

While there is little doubt that Obama’s newfound support for gay marriage will energize the LGBT community as never before, it will also energize the even larger group of social and religious conservatives. In the swing states and among America’s silent majority, the results of Obama’s announcement will tip the scales of the election more toward Mitt Romney.

As a side note, I think it is important to remember that even though gay marriage has emerged as a big issue in the upcoming election, Romney still plans to focus primarily on the economy and jobs as his main message to voters.

“Great to spend some time with the grandkids this week – looking forward to Easter weekend with the family.” ~ Ann Romney (Facebook photo – April 4, 2012)

As Mrs. Romney meets with and speaks to voters across the country, heads are nodding in approval. Women, particularly, are sharing their deepest concerns with her – namely the economy, jobs, deficit spending, and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks.

Knowing a great thing when they see it, the Romney campaign just released a new video ad featuring Ann. A few responses:

The Romney campaign releases a video of Ann Romney, widely acknowledged as the most humanizing element of her husband’s camapign and the person who his team is relying on to help with women voters, talking about raising her family ahead of the holiday weekend.

Whoever had the idea to utilize Ann Romney more on the campaign trail deserves to be richly rewarded. It might be obvious that her sudden visibility is aimed partly to bridge Mitt’s gender gap, but she really does bring their family alive in a way Mitt just hasn’t yet.
[...]
. . . Ann Romney’s wistful remembrances of her sons’ childhood remind me of the inexorability of time. I can think of quite a few moms who would say just what Ann says at the start of the video.

“Even then you knew that these moments would be fleeting, but you didn’t really believe it because you were so in the moment of living with those boys,” she said. “It was pretty chaotic, and a lot of fun, but they were great times.”

Better use today well because tomorrow will be here before we know it!

. . . Mrs. Romney has been an asset in humanizing and softening Mitt’s image, helping to present him as a strong, loving father and family man — a quality that, thankfully, many Americans still respect and admire. It feels like Team Romney is finally starting to really realize just how crucial her input is, and they’ve got a new ad out this week emphasizing Mitt’s more nurturing side:

I’m just going to say it: the more I see of Ann Romney, the more I like her. She seems kind, steady, and highly capable, and I’d be A-okay seeing her as First Lady in the White House. Michelle Obama has been a fairly popular FLOTUS and a valuable player in her own husband’s campaign, but I think Ann Romney seems more than up to the challenge.

I love this video – Ann’s narration, retro feel of the Super 8 footage, and seeing the Romney boys when they were little guys:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz Accused Obama of Breaking a Promise to Not Campaign In Early States:

Wasserman Schultz Said Of Obama: “His Word Doesn’t Always Mean What He Says.” WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “I can tell you that, in Florida, we believe that we are a significant factor in national elections and that we are going to matter, whether there is a pledge or not, and that at this point, with Senator Obama’s clear violation of the pledge, which does show that his word doesn’t always mean what he says, that it’s now our time to review all the options on the table.” (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, News Conference, 1/21/08)

Wasserman Schultz Suggested The Obama Campaign’s Talk Of “Hope” Was Hypocritical And That His Campaign Was Engaged In “Below The Belt” And “Out Of Bounds” Personal Attacks. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “You know, Senator Obama set a tone for this campaign and has talked about the politics of hope throughout and has repeatedly insisted that he was going to run a different kind of campaign and not degenerate into negative personal attacks. You know, it’s one thing for the candidates to talk about the differences between the two of them on how they would govern on the choices that they’d make. But to – for either the candidate or his senior advisers to degenerate into negative personal attacks and name-calling, which clearly was the result of frustration and anger over his losses on Tuesday, is just – it’s below the belt, and it’s out of bounds. And it is not – those kinds of comments are not appropriate for a senior adviser to continue to be affiliated with a campaign for president of the United States.” (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Teleconference, 3/7/08)

Wasserman Schultz Said The Obama Campaign Launched Attacks As “A Result of Frustration and Anger.” “Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida came on the line next and told reporters who were listening in, ‘Senator Obama set a tone for this campaign and talked about the politics of hope.’ She added ‘those kinds of comments are not appropriate for a senior advisers.’ Schultz reduced [Samantha] Power’s comments to ‘the result of frustration and anger over his losses on Tuesday.’” (Katharine Jose, “Clinton Campaign: Fire Samantha Power,” New York Observer, 3/7/08)

Wasserman Schultz Suggested Obama Didn’t Have The Track Record To Prove Himself To Jewish Voters:

Wasserman Schultz Said That While Obama “Says All The Right Things,” He Doesn’t Have The “Longevity” To Prove His Fidelity To Jewish Voters. “‘The main reason she wins and will continue to win the majority of the Jewish vote is this is a community very much about ‘Show me, don’t tell me,’’ Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida told The New York Sun yesterday. ‘With Senator Obama, although he says all the right things, he just doesn’t have that longevity to prove to Jewish voters that he will be there like Hillary Clinton.’ Asked if there was anything specific in Mr. Obama’s record that should give Jewish voters pause, the congresswoman said, ‘There’s no pause? It’s just that he’s starting completely from scratch.’” (Josh Gerstein, “Indyk Rushes To Ohio For Clinton,” The New York Sun, 2/26/08)

Wasserman Schultz Accused The Obama Campaign Of Trying To Suppress The Vote In Florida:

Wasserman Schultz Said Obama’s Supporters Were Trying To Discourage Floridians From Voting In The Presidential Primary. REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “And as a Floridian, I can tell you that it’s become clear to me, given Senator Obama’s supporters’ efforts around the state to suppress the vote and discourage people from voting here — because he clearly is going to get overwhelmed by Senator Clinton’s support — that now they’ve seen that that’s not enough to stem the tide of victory that she is riding on and that the bounce that she would get from winning Florida next Tuesday, which is clear is going to happen, is going to propel her to victories across the country on February 5th.” (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, News Conference, 1/21/08)

Wasserman Schultz Said Elected Officials Supporting Obama Told Communities And Neighborhood Associations To Skip The Primary Because “Their Vote Won’t Count.” WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “[W]e have had elected officials that are supporters of Senator Obama who have literally gone around to condominium communities and to other neighborhood associations and told them that their vote won’t count; they can skip the presidential preference primary because Florida doesn’t have any delegates, and they should only vote on the constitutional amendment that is on our ballot as well.” (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, News Conference, 1/21/08)

Wasserman Schultz: Obama “Has Desperately Tried To Have His Supporters Suppress The Vote” And Implied That “Florida Doesn’t Matter.” WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: “What is clear is that Senator Obama has pushed the panic button. I mean, he has lost three contests in other states in a row. He has desperately tried to have his supporters suppress the vote here, try to imply, you know, either indirectly or almost directly, that Florida doesn’t matter.” (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, News Conference, 1/21/08)